7 views

Uploaded by Fouad Kehila

Bridges

- GATE 2013
- Box Culvert Design
- VRA V422 v2 Belastning (Pub).Da.en
- Slab on Grade Excel Sheet
- Concrete Technology
- SFD-AISC-360-05
- SFD-AISC-360-05
- SFD-AISC-360-05.pdf
- Previews ACI 314R 11 Pre
- Blast Proof Buildings
- Icc Esr-2302 Kb3 Concrete
- Lecture 1 Stresses and Strains
- 88-90
- Design for Simple Stresses
- Load Resistant Factor Design
- ts405.pdf
- ME305 - Advance Strength of Material.pdf
- Numerical Modelling of Semi Rigid Connection With High Strength Steel
- ACI 318-14 RC-SL-001
- ED BATCH 2

You are on page 1of 28

Model for Seismic Response

Assessment of Bridges

Jian Zhang, Assistant Professor

Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering

University of California, Los Angeles

Outline

Introduction

Shear-Flexure Interaction Under Constant Axial Load

Generation of Primary Curve Family

Stress Level Index & Two-stage Loading Approach

Model Verification

Comparison with Fiber Section Model under Seismic Loadings

Limitations and Known Issues

Vertical-to-Horizontal PGA Ratio

Summary

Quake Summit 2010

Introduction

Motivation

Bridge columns are subjected to combined actions of

axial, shear and flexure forces due to structural and

geometrical constraints (skewed, curved etc.) and the

multi-directional earthquake input motions.

Axial load variation can directly impact the ultimate

capacity, stiffness and hysteretic behavior of shear and

flexure responses.

Accurate seismic demand assessment of bridges needs

to realistically account for combined actions.

Objectives

An efficient analytical scheme considering axial-shearflexural interaction

Shear and flexural hysteretic models reflecting the

effects of axial load variation and accumulated material

damage (e.g. strength deterioration, stiffness degrading,

and pinching behavior)

Axial-Shear-Flexural Interaction

(Ozcebe and Saatcioglu 1989)

Shear displacement can be significant -- even if a RC member is not

governed by shear failure (as is the case in most of RC columns).

Inelastic shear behavior -- RC members with higher shear strength

than flexural strength do not guarantee an elastic behavior in shear

deformation.

(ElMandooh and Ghobarah 2003)

Dynamic variation of axial force -- will cause significant change in

the lateral hysteretic moment-curvature relationship and

consequently the overall structural behavior in RC columns.

MCFT

(Vecchio and Collins 1986)

fy

fc1

vxy

fx

fsx

vcxy

fsy

f cr

f c1 1 200

1

2

2

2

f c 2 f c 2,max 2 ' '

c c

f sx Es x f y , x

f sy Es y f y , y

fcx

fc2

fcy

Equilibrium

Strain Compatibility

Constitutive Law

estimate M- and - relationship by Modified Compression Field Theory

(MCFT, Vecchio and Collins 1986).

M

M=V*h

DECK

F-UEL

S-UEL

strain to get displacement.

h *

F-UEL

FNDN

SSI spring

Shear-UEL & Flexural-UEL.

V

S-UEL

= { i*dy*yi + i*dy }

Rigid Column

S-UEL

dy

MCFT

yi

M

F-UEL

70

0.06

70

60

0.06

0.055

60

50

50

40

40

30

30

20

total displ.

20

10

10

0

M/V ratio

shear

displ.

total

displ.

flexural

displ.

shear displ.

flexural displ.

5

10

15

Total5Displacement10

(mm)

15

Total Displacement (mm)

300

90

300

90

250

VV-23

200

Moment

(kN-m)

Moment

(kN-m)

Shear

(kN)(kN)

Shear

0.025

0.02

Smaller shear capacity

0

5

10

15

0.02Maximum

moment

capacity is

Total

Displ.

(mm)

0

5

10

15

Total Displ. (mm)

bounded

by pure bending case

M- 1

VV-12

200

VV-3

150

VV-45

150

VV-56

100

VV-67

100

VV-78

50

VV-89

50

0

0.03

0.025

V- 1

250

0.055

0.05

(level of shear-flexural interaction)

0.05

0.045

demonstrate different mechanical

0.045

0.04

properties and behaviors

0.04

0.035

0.035Section with higher M/V ratio:

0.03

Shear-to-Total

Displ.

Ratio

Shear-to-Total

Displ.

Ratio

1.4 1 M/V =0.076(m)

M/V =0.229(m)

1.2 1

2

M/V

=0.229(m)

1.2

M/V =0.381(m)

1 23

M/V =0.381(m)

M/V =0.534(m)

1

3

4

M/V =0.534(m)

0.8

M/V =0.686(m)

4

5

0.8

M/V =0.686(m)

M/V =0.838(m)

0.6

5

6

M/V =0.838(m)

0.6

M/V =0.991(m)

6

0.4

7

M/V =0.991(m)

M/V =1.143(m)

0.4

7

8

0.2

M/VM/V

=1.143(m)

=1.296(m)

89

0.2

M/V =1.296(m)

0

0

0.59

1

1.5

2

0

M/V

ratio

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Shear

(kN)(kN)

Shear

Column

Height

(m) (m)

Column

Height

4

6

8

Shear

Strain

(mm/m)

4

6

8

10

10

V- 9

12

12

MM-12

60

MM-23

60

MM-34

MM-45

MM-67

30

M=V*h

dy

MM-78

yi

MM-56

30

MM-89

0

10

15

20

Curvature

(rad/km)

10

15

20

Curvature (rad/km)

25

25

M-9

M

30

30

Unloading & reloading stiffness depend on:

Structural characteristics

Damage in the column

Cracked? Yielded?

Shear force level

Max ductility experienced

Loading cycles at max ductility level

Axial load ratio

Loading history

Varying during earthquake !!

Shear Force

Hysteretic Loop

25

20

15

Vy

hardening reference point

(m,Vm)

G

F

10

V

O

Shear Force

pinching reference point (p,Vp)

Vcr

-10

D

-15

-20

-25

-80

U

N

-5

Shear Displacement

R

-60

-40

-20

0

Shear Displacement

20

40

60

80

Quake Summit 2010

Outline

Introduction

Shear-Flexure Interaction Under Constant Axial Load

Generation of Primary Curve Family

Stress Level Index & Two-stage Loading Approach

Model Verification

Comparison with Fiber Section Model under Seismic Loadings

Limitations and Known Issues

Vertical-to-Horizontal PGA Ratio

Summary

Quake Summit 2010

PEER-93

100

PEER-121

700

600

80

PEER-122

250

200

P/P0=-5%(T)

40

P/P0=-2%(T)

P/P0= 5%(C)

P/P0=20%(C)

10

20

30

Column Tip Drift (mm)

Kunnath et al.

H/D=4.5

300

P/P0=-5%(T)

P/P0=-2%(T)

P/P0= 0 (-)

P/P0= 5%(C)

P/P0=10%(C)

100

P/P0=10%(C)

0

400

200

P/P0= 0 (-)

20

40

Shear (kN)

60

Shear (kN)

Shear (kN)

500

10

15

Column Tip Drift (mm)

Calderone-328

H/D=3.0

20

P/P0=-5%(T)

P/P0=-2%(T)

P/P0= 0 (-)

P/P0= 5%(C)

P/P0=10%(C)

100

50

P/P0=20%(C)

0

150

25

P/P0=20%(C)

0

50

100

Column Tip Drift (mm)

150

Calderone-828

H/D=8.0

Ultimate capacity and stiffness increase with compressive axial load level.

Yielding displacement is almost fixed, regardless of applied axial load.

Cracking point is getting smaller as axial force decreasing, implying the

column being relatively easy to be cracked.

Quake Summit 2010

10

Vcr(P/P0=n%) / Vy (P/P0=5%C)

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

-10

2

Vy (P/P0=n%) / Vy (P/P0=5%C)

Y = 0.68*(X+0.25)2+0.01

10

20

30

P/P0 (%), Compression is "+".

1.5

1

0.5

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

2.5

Y =-2.15*(X-0.60)2+1.65

0

-10

Y = 1.47*(X+0.25)2+0.02

0

-10

40

Vu(P/P0=n%) / Vy (P/P0=5%C)

cr

0

y

0

0.5

10

20

30

P/P0 (%), Compression is "+".

40

10

20

30

P/P0 (%), Compression is "+".

40

Y =-3.20*(X-0.60)2+2.32

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

-10

10

20

30

P/P0 (%), Compression is "+".

40

cr ( P / P0 n%)

P

0.68*( 0.25) 2 0.01

y ( P / P0 5%)

P0

Vcr ( P / P0 n%)

P

1.47 *( 0.25) 2 0.02

Vy ( P / P0 5%)

P0

Vy ( P / P0 n%)

Vu ( P / P0 n%)

P

3.20*( 0.6) 2 2.32

Vy ( P / P0 5%)

P0

Vy ( P / P0 5%)

2.15*(

P

0.6) 2 1.65

P0

11

Objective: Generating the primary curves related to various axial load levels

from a given primary curve subject to an initial axial load

loading

I% initial primary curve (given)

a

DL def .level

(Ii%)

SL stress.level

a

b

b

deflection

i

ii

iii

iv

V(iI)%

VcrI %

(ni%) DL * crn %

V(ni )% SL *Vcrn %

DL def . level

I%

cr

SL stress level

(Iii%) crI %

*y crI %

V( iiI %) VcrI %

VyI % VcrI %

V(nii%) SL * (Vyn % Vcrn % ) Vcrn %

ductility unchanged

n%

( iv )

V(niv%) RSR *Vun %

I%

( iv )

V(ivI %)

VuI %

ductility unchanged

SL stress level

(niii%) (Iiii%)

V(iiiI %) VyI %

VuI % VyI %

12

Assumption:

Effective stress level of a loaded column at

fixed ductility is independent of axial load.

c

Stress Level Index

Equivalent

stress level

10%

Vm10%

Vy10%

Veff10%

Equivalent

stress level

Vm0%

Vy0%

Veff0%

0%

c

y

max

max

-5%

Vm5%

Vy5%

Veff5%

c

y

d

max

Keep N, change : 1 2

Veff10%

10%

Veff10%

10%

Veff5%

-5%

Veff5%

-5%

c

d

c

1

max

13

Outline

Introduction

Shear-Flexure Interaction Under Constant Axial Load

Generation of Primary Curve Family

Stress Level Index & Two-stage Loading Approach

Model Verification

Comparison with Fiber Section Model under Seismic Loadings

Limitations and Known Issues

Vertical-to-Horizontal PGA Ratio

Summary

Quake Summit 2010

14

TP-033

TP-034

Height

Diameter

15

Hysteretic Loop

200

150

TP-031

Hysteretic Loop

50

200

0

-50

100

-100

-150

-200

-80

TP-031

Sakai and Kawashima

H/D=3.375

150

-60

-40

-20

0

20

Displacement (mm)

100

TP-032

Sakai and Kawashima

H/D=3.375

50

Analytical

Experimental

0

40

60

80

-50

TP-032

-100

-150

-200

-80

Analytical

Experimental

-60

-40

-20

0

20

Displacement (mm)

40

60

80

16

Hysteretic Loop

200

150

50

TP-031

Axial load

increasing

150

-50

100

Axial load decreasing

-100

-150

-200

-80

Hysteretic Loop

200

-60

-40

-20

0

20

Displacement (mm)

100

TP-034

TP-033

Sakai and Kawashima

H/D=3.375

Axial load

increasing

TP-034

Sakai and Kawashima

H/D=3.375

50

Analytical

Experimental

0

40

60

80

-50

TP-032

-100

TP-033

-150

-200

-80

Analytical

Experimental

-60

-40

-20

0

20

Displacement (mm)

40

60

80

17

ABAQUS ASFI Model

100

Shear (kN)

50

0

-50

1000

-100

500

OpenSees w/ V-EQ

OpenSees w/o V-EQ

ABAQUS w/ V-EQ

ABAQUS w/o V-EQ

-150

0

-200

-500

-20

2

-10

6

0

10

10

Tip Displ. (mm)

200

can yield good prediction on

the displacement demand.

150

Shear (kN)

two models agree with each

other indicating reasonable

prediction on the tangent

stiffness of the proposed

ASFI model.

200

general produces larger

displacement demand than

the fiber section model.

-200

4

6

Time (s)

10

20

30

20

0

-20

0

4

6

Time (s)

10

18

Estimation on post-peak stiffness of primary curve family

may not be adequate.

May converge at an incorrect solution for systems with

yielding platform.

May converge at an inconsistent deformed configuration

for softening systems.

Use of full stiffness matrix can somehow improve the

above-mentioned convergence issues, however, it is an

asymmetric matrix which offsets most of the advantages.

V

19

Outline

Introduction

Shear-Flexure Interaction Under Constant Axial Load

Generation of Primary Curve Family

Stress Level Index & Two-stage Loading Approach

Model Verification

Comparison with Fiber Section Model under Seismic Loadings

Limitations and Known Issues

Vertical-to-Horizontal PGA Ratio

Summary

Quake Summit 2010

20

0.02

w /o V-EQ

no shift on V-EQ

0

-0.4s -0.3s -0.2s -0.1s

0

V

4

6

Time (s)

(a) Horizontal:

Vertical:

10

WN22 (Tp=0.488s);

WN22 (Tp=0.138s)

8

6

4

(b) Horizontal:

Vertical:

w /o V-EQ

0.5352(g)

0.4521(g)

no shift on V-EQ

4

6

Time (s)

10

x 10

8

6

4

2

10

WN22 (Tp=0.488s);

NO4 (Tp=0.322s)

x 10

no shift on V-EQ

0

-0.4s -0.3s -0.2s -0.1s 0.0 0.1s 0.2s 0.3s 0.4s

0.08

w /o V-EQ

tpeak

- tpeak

V

H

no shift on V-EQ

0

-0.4s -0.3s -0.2s -0.1s 0.0 0.1s 0.2s 0.3s 0.4s

tpeak

- tpeak

V

H

0

-0.5

w /o V-EQ

x 10

0

-0.4s -0.3s -0.2s -0.1s

0.5

10

tpeak

- tpeak

V

H

w /o V-EQ

no shift on V-EQ

0

-0.4s -0.3s -0.2s -0.1s

tpeak

- tpeak

V

H

-0.4432(g)

x 10

tpeak

- tpeak

V

H

H

-0.5

Acceleration (g)

0.04

0.4521(g)

0.06

Acceleration (g)

0.5

0.08

Max Column Drift (m)

0.06

0.04

0.02

w /o V-EQ

no shift on V-EQ

0

-0.4s -0.3s -0.2s -0.1s 0.0 0.1s 0.2s 0.3s 0.4s

tpeak

- tpeak

V

H

21

subject to WN22 (T&V)

Max

0

-1

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

PGA V / PGA H

(a) Horizontal:

Vertical:

0.8

1.0

WN22 (Tp=0.488s);

WN22 (Tp=0.138s)

Max

min

1

0

-1

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

PGA V / PGA H

(b) Horizontal:

Vertical:

0.4

0.6

PGA V / PGA H

0.8

0.8

1.0

1.0

WN22 (Tp=0.488s);

NO4 (Tp=0.322s)

0.2

0.4

0.6

PGA V / PGA H

0.8

1.0

0.8

1.0

0.8

1.0

x 10

8

6

4

2

w /o V-EQ

0.2

0.4

0.6

PGA V / PGA H

0.8

10

x 10

8

6

4

2

w /o V-EQ

0

0.0

1.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

PGA V / PGA H

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0

0.0

w /o V-EQ

0

0.0

0.08

x 10

10

0

0.0

2

0.2

x 10

min

w /o V-EQ

x 10

0

0.0

x 10

drift demand.

tVpeak tHpeak = -0.1s

3

Max Base Shear (N)

larger influence on force demand.

w /o V-EQ

0.2

0.4

0.6

PGA V / PGA H

0.8

1.0

0.06

0.04

0.02

0

0.0

w /o V-EQ

0.2

0.4

0.6

PGA V / PGA H

22

C2@B2

-0.02

0

Column Drift (m)

0.02

0.04

0.06

Force-Displacement //Trans.

x 10

-3

-0.04

-0.02

-0.01

0

0.01

Column Drift (m)

0.02

0.03

0.04

2

0

10

10

-0.005

0

0.005

Rotation Angle @ F-UEL (rad)

6

Moment-Rotation @Trans.

x 10

4

2

10

10

10

10

10

x 10

3

2.5

2

1.5

x 10

10 0.01

8

6

4

-2

-4

1 -8

-0.025

1

3.5

2 -6

x -8

10

15 -0.01

1

6

0.5 -4

1

2

-6

-0.03

1 -2

10

1.5

-2

5Moment-Rotation

6

7

8

9

@Longi.

x 10

6

-1

0.01

-0.04

H only

0.02

C2@B1

C1@B2

2.5

2 6

x 10

V+H

0.03

-2

-0.06

0.04

-0.02

0

0.005

Rotation Angle @ F-UEL (rad)

4

5

6

7

Earthquake Index Number

10

C1@B1

Moment (N-m)

-1

0.02

-3

-0.08

H only

V+H

0.04

Force-Displacement //Longi.

x 10

0.06

Moment (N-m)

change overall bridge responses

much.

0.01

3

2

1

0

0.015

4

5

6

7

Earthquake Index Number

23

Summary

columns.

Primary curves of the same column under different axial loads

can be predicted very well by applying the normalized primary

curve and parameterized critical points.

Mapping between loading branches corresponding to different

axial load levels is made possible by breaking the step into two

stages: constant deformation stage and constant loading stage.

Model verification shows that the proposed method is able to

capture the effects of axial load variation on the lateral responses

of RC columns.

Transient time analysis on individual bridge column and on

prototype bridge system shows that considering axial load

variation during earthquake events does not change the drift

demand significantly.

24

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Science Foundation through the Network for Earthquake

Engineering Simulation Research Program, grant CMMI0530737, Joy Pauschke, program manager.

Thank You!

Thanks for your attention !

25

Plastic Hinge Models

and flexural responses of columns at the

element level

Empirical and approximate

Difficult to couple together the axial, shear,

and flexural responses

Numerical instability in the adopted

hysteretic models may induce convergence

problem

Linear or Nonlinear

spring elements

y

fiber

Controlling the element responses directly at

the material level

Coupling the axial-flexural interaction

Rotation of principal axes in concrete (as

large as 30) due to the existence of shear

stress is not considered

z

y

x

z

26

Deficiencies of Current Models

Non-linearity in shear deformation is not accounted for.

Material damage (strength deterioration and pinching) due to cyclic loading is not considered.

Axial-Shear-Flexural interaction is not captured.

100

100

50

50

0

-50

0

-50

-100

-150

-60

150

Shear (kN)

Shear (kN)

150

-100

Test TP-021

nonLinear M-

-40

-20

0

20

Displacement (mm)

40

60

-150

-60

Test TP-021

OpenSees Fiber

-40

-20

0

20

Displacement(mm)

40

60

27

TP033: Axial Load= -10(-0.3%) ~ +310(+8.5%) kN

predicted by equations

25.0%

200

100

-10.0%

0

EXP

-100

0%

P/Po= 12.80%

proposed Eq's

-200

-60

-40

-20

0

20

Total Displacement (mm)

40

60

100

-10.0%

50

P/P0= 12.80%

OpenSees

0

10

20

30

Total Displacement (mm)

40

200

Lateral Load (kN)

150

200

150

100

50

0

25.0%

200

10%

Lateral Load (kN)

10

15

Total Displacement (mm)

20

150

100

50

0

5

10

Total Displacement (mm)

15

Fiber Section Model overestimates initial stiffness.

Fiber Section Model underestimates axial load effects.

Quake Summit 2010

28

- GATE 2013Uploaded byvennila-puvi
- Box Culvert DesignUploaded byjohney2
- VRA V422 v2 Belastning (Pub).Da.enUploaded byFerdie Tolosa
- Slab on Grade Excel SheetUploaded byEngrDebashisMallick
- Concrete TechnologyUploaded byTuladhar R Amreet
- SFD-AISC-360-05Uploaded byShreeharsha Harsha
- SFD-AISC-360-05Uploaded byElkin Mauricio López Morantes
- SFD-AISC-360-05.pdfUploaded byJuan Pablo Granada Castaño
- Previews ACI 314R 11 PreUploaded byTavio TavioTavio
- Blast Proof BuildingsUploaded byAnonymous I1tOPIZSk
- Icc Esr-2302 Kb3 ConcreteUploaded byxpertsteel
- Lecture 1 Stresses and StrainsUploaded bysamurai7_77
- 88-90Uploaded byandeekurniawan
- Design for Simple StressesUploaded bykhudhayer1970
- Load Resistant Factor DesignUploaded byvijaystructural
- ts405.pdfUploaded byRobin Gu
- ME305 - Advance Strength of Material.pdfUploaded byAnjali Shah
- Numerical Modelling of Semi Rigid Connection With High Strength SteelUploaded byMuhammad Luthfilchanif
- ACI 318-14 RC-SL-001Uploaded byBunkun15
- ED BATCH 2Uploaded bySiddharth Narayanan Chidambareswaran
- E 488Uploaded byJGD123
- Prezentare Paris Office 2010Uploaded byNicole Hanson
- Chapter1 IntroductionUploaded byGeronimo Libiternos Basada Jr
- Squarefooting CalculatorUploaded byShaukat Khan
- An Analysis of the Behavior of Steel Liner AnchoragesUploaded byhoustonhimself
- 5841921Uploaded bySarul Luckas
- DE0046BDC7AD97CF69511C1257A53003BD22A (1)Uploaded byirinat101
- Part2 Static 1 1Uploaded bySufiyan Shaikh
- OTC-5796-MS.pdfUploaded byChinmaya Ranjan Jena

- Ultrasonic Testing Useful FormulaeUploaded byST-blues
- Seismic Assessment and Retrofit of Reinforced Concrete Columns.pdfUploaded byFouad Kehila
- Damage_index_analysis_of_prefabricated_segmentalUploaded byFouad Kehila
- 1 Algeria Code RPA99-2003Uploaded byAtilla Şahin Çalışkan
- 2016 Sss Flood FragilityUploaded byFouad Kehila
- Cables and ArchesUploaded byFouad Kehila
- Seismic Retrofit of Hollow Bridge PiersUploaded byFouad Kehila
- Seismic Fragility of Continuous Steel Highway Brid(1)Uploaded byFouad Kehila
- S4-4 Damping PaperUploaded byFouad Kehila
- 3_D stresses PPUploaded byFouad Kehila
- Seismic Fragility Analysis for Highway Bridges With Consideration(1)Uploaded byFouad Kehila
- Seismic Fragility Curves for a Typical Highway Bridge in CharlestUploaded byFouad Kehila
- Seismic Fragility Functions of RC Moment Frames Using Incremental Dynamic AnalysesUploaded byFouad Kehila
- Presentation Bh(BSRM 1)Uploaded byFouad Kehila
- Vector ProofUploaded byaucyaucy123
- Analytical Seismic Fragility Curves for Skewed Multi-span SteelUploaded byFouad Kehila
- Amazing Feats of Civil Engineering (Great Achievements in Engineering)Uploaded byFouad Kehila
- WCEE2012_0426Uploaded byFouad Kehila
- 1-Resillience of Bridges Following Aftershocks by Diego EUploaded byFouad Kehila
- 300 Solved Problems in Geotechnical EngineeringUploaded bymote34
- BridgePBEE_UserManual_2011DecUploaded byCIVIL100
- 21 Seismic Behaviour of Confined Masonry WallsUploaded byFouad Kehila
- Matlab Intro 2Uploaded byFouad Kehila
- 2732_ConfinedMasonry14Dec07Uploaded byBasilio Splvd
- StrainsUploaded byfoufou2003
- Assign 2Uploaded byFouad Kehila

- Bernoulli Newton LiftUploaded byMartin Schweighart Moya
- Branson 1965.pdfUploaded byTatiane Maga
- Course Syllabus Pc141 Fall 2017Uploaded byUsama Asad
- Er MonitoringUploaded byAsma Sed
- Humidity MeasurementUploaded byKaran Roy
- termicos.pdfUploaded byJulienBap
- RULMECA - Rollers and components for bulk handlingUploaded byrezasalehi
- Linc L471 Level Switch Data Sheet.pdfUploaded byBryan Pacheco T
- 8697_bulUploaded byHartono Prayitno
- Flowserve Cv tables.pdfUploaded bydigeca
- Mss Pump Curves[1]Uploaded byimtiyaz
- Numatics Series Mcr Rodless Cylinders Catalog (1)Uploaded bycroggero
- II Pipeline Design Codes and Standards-MSGUploaded bySanjay Kumar
- spin_loading_to_box_culvertsUploaded byAyman Mohamed
- 10.1 Ventilation Surveys - Undergound Ventilation SurveyUploaded byDeepakKattimani
- physcis hkcee pastpaperUploaded bypetecostein2
- 015 IH 1002 Pipeline DesignUploaded byAhmed
- Manual La the ProcedureUploaded byDonovan Bonner
- A11V0_EUploaded byDhanraj Patil
- SEMINAR REPORT.docxUploaded byAshutosh Raut
- 20071249Uploaded byRector Khan
- Pp6.Connection Design WeldUploaded byAhmad Humaidi
- Discussion Lab RefrigerantUploaded byBroAmir
- IRJET-Design of Steering System for All Terrain VehicleUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Chapter 1 (Lecture 1)Uploaded byFnur Fatihah
- 192888852-Trane.pdfUploaded byRige
- vasco 2.pdfUploaded byalexmuchmure2158
- 3860 Manual ProjectorUploaded byBeatriz Sanchez
- PC235W13 Assignment4 SolutionsUploaded bykwok
- Planetary Gear SystemUploaded byprasanth